社会排斥对产品触觉信息偏好的影响及其作用机制

社会排斥的现象在当今社会日益凸显,已成为世界各国探究社会政策和不平等问题的一个重要方向。然而却鲜少有研究从心理机制的角度探讨社会排斥对人们的产品偏好的影响。本文通过1个预实验和4个主实验,系统研究了社会排斥如何影响个体对不同触感产品的偏好,并探讨了其内在影响机制。实验结果发现在经历社会排斥(相较于社会接纳)之后,个体更偏好触感柔软的产品,消极心理体验是其内在驱动机制,并且该作用机制被归属感的重要性所调节。当归属感被认为很重要时,个体在经历社会排斥后对柔软触感产品的偏好以及消极心理体验的中介作用会被强化,而当归属感被认为不重要时,以上效应会被削弱。本文还对研究结论的理论贡献和实践应用进行了深入讨论。     

社会偏好中的框架效应

社会偏好中的框架效应是指, 个体在决策中受到选择方案框架形式的影响而表现出合作、互惠及利他行为及倾向改变的现象, 是框架效应在社会偏好领域的运用。预期理论、错误知觉说、心理动力模型、情绪维护理论以及解释水平理论分别从价值函数、知觉偏差、内部心理动力、情绪及认知表征角度解释了社会偏好中的框架效应, 心理距离、价值取向、人格特质和文化等因素对社会偏好中的框架效应具有重要影响。未来的研究需要从社会偏好中的框架效应的心理机制与神经机制、研究范式及外部效度改进等方面作进一步探讨。     

不患不均？容忍和支持经济不平等的心理学解释

不断加剧的经济不平等问题对个体和社会有着巨大危害,然而人们对经济不平等却有着较高的容忍性。基于个体心理的研究证据,本文提出认知和动机双重路径模型来解释个体容忍和支持经济不平等问题。在认知路径上,个体倾向于低估当前社会的经济不平等程度和将经济不平等评价为公平的;在动机路径上,个体预期经济不平等将带来自我利益的增加。未来研究应进一步整合多重心理机制间的关系,并探索有效干预手段以增加人们对减少经济不平等的支持。     

同性恋形成机制探析

尽管人们对同性恋越来越宽容,但它仍是一种反常规现象。让现有同性恋者放弃同恋行为来减少同性恋难度很大,也不人道。在同性恋形成机制的问题上,有生理机制说和社会心理机制说。本文倾向于社会心理机制说。尝试从同性恋的社会心理机制上把同性恋分为两个形成亚型,并说明了每个亚型形成的具体过程。     

经济不平等对阶层流动感知的影响及其机制

经济不平等是影响阶层流动感知的重要因素。研究发现，经济不平等可能抑制、也可能提升阶层流动感知。在梳理两者之间复杂关系的基础上，本文提出了经济不平等影响阶层流动感知的作用机制模型。经济不平等可能通过影响不同的心理过程，继而对阶层流动感知产生抑制或提升作用；此外，两者关系也会受到微观个体因素和宏观社会因素的调节，从而呈现出不同的关系模式。未来研究应进一步考察和完善经济不平等影响阶层流动感知的整合模型。     

得失程数的变化: 损失规避现象的新视点

损失规避是预期理论的核心部分之一, 指等量的损失和获得产生的心理效用并不相同, 前者大于后者。大量研究从生理、认知、情感等角度探讨损失规避的内在机制和规律, 以期认识、预测并控制损失规避导致的偏差。本研究假设损失规避与获得或损失的“程数”(route)有关, 以往研究发现了损失规避现象, 是由于其采用的“双程损失-单程获得”典型情境中, 损失程数多于获得程数。为检验该假设, 本研究设计了不同于传统范式的“获得和损失程数相等”的镜像情境、“单程损失－双程获得”及“三程获得”三种不同的得失情境。研究结果支持本假设: 当损失的程数等于或少于获得的程数时, 损失规避现象消失; 获得或损失的程数越多, 个体对其的心理感受强度趋于越高。建议未来研究进一步检验心理感受强度在程数和损失规避行为之间的中介作用。     

越富有越不支持再分配?——社会阶层与再分配偏向的关系及其心理机制

社会阶层是影响再分配偏向的重要因素。研究发现, 与低阶层者相比, 高阶层者再分配偏向更低。基于以往研究, 提出高社会阶层者低再分配偏向的作用机制及干预模型。依据该模型, 动机方面的经济自利与系统合理信念, 认知方面的经济不平等感知、贫富差距归因与刻板印象, 情感方面的同情心与地位焦虑是影响高阶层者再分配偏向的中介因素; 培育谦卑心态、进行反刻板印象干预、利用不平等框架效应、提高同情心、改变阶层文化价值观有助于提升高阶层者的再分配偏向。未来研究可对高阶层者的慈善行为及部分低阶层者拒绝再分配的现象加以关注, 深入考察和完善该模型的作用机制, 探索提升高阶层者再分配偏向的策略。     

社会支配倾向研究的回顾与展望

社会支配倾向指个体对基于群体产生的等级制度及社会存在不平等现象的偏好程度。高社会支配倾向者认为高能力者应比低能力者获得更多的社会权利与社会资源;低社会支配倾向者认为社会应该按需分配,不存在等级差异。社会支配倾向会对社会阶层、偏见、政治态度、公平等现象的作用产生影响,是这些现象的重要影响因素。今后需要立足于社会支配倾向的本质与社会应用开展整合性研究。     

行为经济学中的损失规避

损失规避是指,人们总是强烈倾向于规避损失：一定数额的损失所引起的心理感受,其强烈程度约相当于两倍数额的获益感受。这种强烈的心理与行为倾向广泛存在于风险与非风险领域,在该两个领域中损失规避的研究范式也不同。损失规避常见于经济和消费等领域,可用于解释行为决策中有悖于规范化理论的诸多现象,如禀赋效应、现状偏差、股权溢价之迷和赢者的诅咒等。然而,损失规避的机制研究还存在许多尚未解决的问题,如损失规避的本质以及适用条件。今后的研究不仅要注重认知角度和情感依恋,还要结合认知过程来研究损失规避的性质和内在机制,以期帮助人们认识、预测及干预由损失规避造成的经济损失和非理性决策。     

饥饿对认知与社会行为的影响及其机制

从心理学视角综述了饥饿对个体认知与社会行为的广泛影响。饥饿会损害一般认知功能, 潜在导致决策与认知偏差, 并引发道德判断标准降低、社会态度改变以及攻击行为增加等现象。在以往研究的基础上, 总结出饥饿影响认知与社会行为内在机制的三种假说：自我损耗说、认知激活说以及协调机制说。最后, 指出当前研究存在着饥饿主观感受差异、测量方法不够准确等问题, 未来研究需要提高饥饿的测量效度, 从生理、心理、社会等多个层面对饥饿影响的机制进行深入探讨。     

社会距离与分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶的影响

选取60名8-10岁儿童,采用迫选式独裁者游戏,考察个体与博弈对象的社会距离以及分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶的影响。结果发现：（1）在有利不公平条件下,与博弈对象社会距离越近,儿童对不公平分配提议的拒绝率越高;（2）分配差距越大,儿童对不公平分配提议的拒绝率越高;（3）社会距离和分配差距交互作用显著,在中等分配差距条件下,儿童对不公平分配提议拒绝率的社会距离效应最为明显。结果表明,社会距离和分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶有显著影响,在中度分配差距下社会距离具有更加明显的调节作用。     

社会距离与分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶的影响

选取60名8-10岁儿童,采用迫选式独裁者游戏,考察个体与博弈对象的社会距离以及分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶的影响。结果发现：（1）在有利不公平条件下,与博弈对象社会距离越近,儿童对不公平分配提议的拒绝率越高;（2）分配差距越大,儿童对不公平分配提议的拒绝率越高;（3）社会距离和分配差距交互作用显著,在中等分配差距条件下,儿童对不公平分配提议拒绝率的社会距离效应最为明显。结果表明,社会距离和分配差距对儿童有利不公平厌恶有显著影响,在中度分配差距下社会距离具有更加明显的调节作用。     

Children discard a resource to avoid inequity

Elucidating how inequity aversion (a tendency to dislike and correct unequal outcomes) functions as one develops is important to understanding more complex fairness considerations in adulthood. Although previous research has demonstrated that adults and children reduce inequity, it is unclear if people are actually responding negatively to inequity or if people dislike others getting more than them (motivated by social comparison) and like to share maximal resources, especially with those who have few resources (motivated by social welfare preferences). In order to evaluate if children are truly averse to inequity, we had 3- to 8-year-old children distribute resources to 3rd parties and found that 6- to 8-year-old children would rather throw a resource in the trash than distribute unequally, suggesting that concerns with equity can trump concerns with maximal sharing. We also demonstrated that children's reactions were not based on wanting to avoid upsetting the recipients or based on a preference for visual symmetry and that children will even throw away a resource that could have gone to themselves in order to avoid inequity. These results demonstrate the existence of inequity aversion in children, provide a new method for studying inequity aversion specifically, and suggest the need for new models to explain why inequity aversion may have evolved.     

Inequity aversion in human adults: testing behavioural criteria from comparative cognition

Inequity aversion refers to an attempt to reduce a perceived discrepancy between one’s own input and output ratio (i.e. ratio between work invested and rewards obtained) and that of others. It has been proposed that inequity aversion might also play a role in the decision-making process of other animals. One issue, however, is that while studies in comparative cognition define clear behavioural criteria for an inequity aversion effect in animals, studies conducted on humans rely on an implicit definition of the concept involving assumptions for which there is yet no experimental evidence. In particular, the basis of inequity aversion is assumed to be a social comparison process that is further motivated by fairness concerns. Based on the studies on non-human animals, we tested whether inequity aversion in adult humans will satisfy the behavioural criteria for these assumptions. Although humans showed a decrease in working for a lower-value reward when working alone (non-social effect), this effect was enhanced when a partner was present (social effect) suggesting that their inequity aversion might be based on a social comparison process. Additionally, our tests ruled out the possibility that selfish motives underlie the subjects’ decisions, which raises the possibility that fairness concerns might have been the primary motive. Our results thus show that human behaviour satisfies two criteria imposed by the definition of inequity aversion. A similar pattern is shown in other species, suggesting that the same or similar processes might influence economic decision-making in both humans and non-human animals.     

社会决策中的公平准则及其神经机制

社会决策中的公平准则一直受到广泛的关注,经济学家和心理学家们分别从动机和认知的角度对这个课题进行了深入探索.在这些工作中,最为突出的是“均等”,“互惠”和“情绪”三个模型的提出.均等和互惠模型试图从动机角度理解个体的公平行为,而情绪模型则更强调个体在公平决策中的认知和情绪的加工过程.近年来脑成像的研究也为这些模型提供了相应的支持,其中与公平准则最密切的脑区是脑岛和背外侧前额叶:前者一般被认为是反映了个体面对不公平待遇时的负性情绪体验;而后者主要负责决策过程中的抑制控制.但这些脑区具体的功能还存在很多争议,反映了不同理论模型对特定脑区功能的不同理解.未来研究应注意三个模型之间的相互补充,以及加强多模态的脑指标的运用,并注重相关脑区的整体性,此外,公平决策行为中的个体差异,以及社会情境对其的影响也应受到重视.     

"I had so much it didn't seem fair": Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity

Research using economic games has demonstrated that adults are willing to sacrifice rewards in order to prevent inequity both when they receive less than a social partner (disadvantageous inequity) and when they receive more (advantageous inequity). We investigated the development of both forms of inequity aversion in 4- to 8-year-olds using a novel economic game in which children could accept or reject unequal allocations of candy with an unfamiliar peer. The results showed that 4- to 7-year-olds rejected disadvantageous offers, but accepted advantageous offers. By contrast, 8-year-olds rejected both forms of inequity. These results suggest that two distinct mechanisms underlie the development of the two forms of inequity aversion.     

认知资源对4～6岁儿童不公平厌恶的影响

目的:探究幼儿不公平厌恶是自动化反应还是理性行为。方法:采用最后通牒博弈游戏变式和认知资源消耗任务,考察104名4~6岁儿童的不公平厌恶。结果:(1)4~6岁儿童的不利不公平厌恶随年龄发展增多;有利不公平厌恶出现较晚,表现较少;二者发展不平衡;(2)4~6岁儿童的不公平厌恶是依赖于认知资源的理性行为;(3)4~6岁儿童不利不公平厌恶受认知资源影响更大;认知资源不足导致5岁儿童不公平厌恶行为减少更多。结论:4~6岁儿童的不公平厌恶是依赖于认知资源的理性行为。     

最后通牒游戏中接收者拒绝行为的情绪义务模型

公平偏好使人们在面对不公平的分配时通常会有所表示,在最后通牒游戏中具体表现为对不公平报价的拒绝,有很多研究把拒绝的原因归结为不公平厌恶和互惠主义等社会偏好,但这并不能解释一些最后通牒变体游戏中的拒绝行为。但这恰恰支持了情绪义务模型。     

On inequity aversion in nonhuman primates

P. G. Roma, A. Silberberg, A. M. Ruggiero, and S. J. Suomi (2006) noted that the results S. F. Brosnan and F. B. M. de Waal (2003) attributed to inequity aversion could also be explained as a frustration effect. Roma et al. redressed this confound by designing a procedure that could have supported either of these interpretations. Nevertheless, they found that only a frustration effect accounted for both their data and those of Brosnan and de Waal (2003). The criticisms Brosnan and de Waal (2006) offered of Roma et al. ignored the fact that Brosnan and de Waal's (2003) research design was not capable of offering an unequivocal demonstration of inequity aversion. This conclusion holds no matter what the claimed inadequacies of Roma et al.'s procedures might have been. Caution is urged in inferring the existence of inequity aversion in nonhuman primates.     

“The ball don't lie”: How inequity aversion can undermine performance

Previous research has found that people are often averse to inequity, even when it works to their own advantage. The present research extends previous demonstrations of inequity aversion by examining how it plays out in a real-world context in which self-interest motivations and competitive pressures are substantial. National Basketball Association games were examined and instances of obviously incorrect foul calls were identified. Players were found to make a substantially lower percentage of the foul shots they were awarded as a result of incorrect calls, indicating that they were troubled by the inequity. This drop-off in performance was only observed when the shooter's team was ahead, highlighting the trade-off between the two conflicting motives of self-interest (the desire to win) and inequity aversion.